Search

Background: Data are lacking as to when a meniscal allograft transplant (MAT) may be biomechanically superior to a partially resected lateral meniscus., Hypothesis: Lateral MAT using a bone bridge technique would restore load distribution and contact pressures in the tibiofemoral joint to levels superior to those of a partial lateral meniscectomy., Study Design: Controlled laboratory study., Methods: Eleven fresh-frozen human cadaveric knees were evaluated in 5 lateral meniscal testing conditions (native, one-third posterior horn meniscectomy, two-thirds posterior horn meniscectomy, total meniscectomy, MAT) at 3 flexion angles (0°, 30°, and 60°) under a 1600-N axial load. Pressure sensors were used to acquire contact pressure, contact area, and peak contact pressure within the tibiofemoral joint., Results: Limited (one-third and two-thirds) partial lateral posterior horn meniscectomy showed no significant increase in mean and peak contact pressures as well as no significant decrease in contact area compared with the intact state. Total meniscectomy significantly increased mean contact pressure at 0° and 30° ( P = .008 and P < .001, respectively), increased peak contact pressure at 30° ( P = .04), and decreased mean contact area in all flexion angles compared with the native condition ( P < .01). Lateral MAT significantly improved mean contact pressure compared with total meniscectomy at 0° and 30° ( P = .002 and P = .003, respectively) and increased contact area at 30° and 60° ( P = .003 and P = .009, respectively), although contact area was still significantly smaller (24.1%) after MAT relative to the native meniscus (P = 0.015). However, allograft transplant did not result in better tibiofemoral contact biomechanics compared with limited partial meniscectomy ( P > .05)., Conclusion: The peripheral portion of the lateral meniscus provided the most important contribution to the distribution of contact pressure across the tibiofemoral joint in the cadaveric model. Total meniscectomy significantly increased mean and peak contact pressure in the cadaveric model and decreased contact area. Lateral MAT restored contact biomechanics close to normal but was not superior to the partially meniscectomized status., Clinical Relevance: Surgeons should attempt to preserve a peripheral rim of the posterior lateral meniscus. Meniscal allograft transplant appears to improve but not normalize mean contact pressure and contact area relative to total lateral meniscectomy., Competing Interests: One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: A.H.G. has received consulting fees from Zimmer Biomet, Smith & Nephew, Aastrom Biosciences, Aesculap Biologics, Geistlich Pharma, Genzyme Corp, and Sanofi-Aventus; travel payments from Lifenet Health, Fidia Pharmal, and Stryker; and honoraria from Vericel. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.

Purpose: To conduct a systematic review evaluating potential correlations between preoperative articular cartilage integrity on outcomes and survivorship in patients undergoing meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT)., Methods: A literature search was performed by querying SCOPUS, PubMed, Medline, and the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials from database inception through May 2023 according to the 2020 PRISMA statement. Inclusion criteria were limited to studies reporting on outcomes and survivorship following MAT based on preoperative cartilage status., Results: Sixteen studies, consisting of 1723 patients (n = 1758 total menisci), were identified in six level III and 10 level IV evidence studies. There was high heterogeneity in cartilage grading scales, reporting of concomitant cartilage procedures, and indications for MAT based on osteoarthritis. Patients with lower limb malalignment were either excluded or corrected with an osteotomy. MAT failure rate was reported in nine studies, with four studies reporting a greater rate of failure in knees with higher degrees of cartilage damage. Eight studies reported on clinical outcomes based on cartilage grade, with two studies reporting significant differences in clinical outcomes based on cartilage grade. Of the five studies reporting management of full-thickness chondral defects with cartilage surgery, three studies reported no significant difference in survivorship based on preoperative cartilage grade, while one study reported lower survivorship and one study reported unclear results. No studies found significant differences in survivorship and outcomes between medial and lateral MAT., Conclusions: Conflicting results and high variability in reporting of concomitant cartilage repair and indications for MAT exist in studies evaluating the efficacy of MAT based on articular cartilage status. The degree of preoperative chondral damage did not have a strong relationship with clinical outcomes following MAT. Higher degrees of cartilage damage were associated with higher MAT failure rates, with possible improvement in survivorship when treated with an appropriate cartilage procedure., Level of Evidence: Level IV., (© 2024 European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy.)

Management of meniscal radial and root tears and extrusion is complex and has changed significantly over recent years. It is important to provide a comprehensive overview of the management of radial and root tears and meniscal extrusion and be aware of the currently available evidence on repair techniques, rehabilitation, and outcomes following radial and root repairs.